The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-08-31
EXTRADITION.

State Department officials at Washington
are said to be of the opinion that new ex-
tradition treaty between Great Britain and this
country will be negotiated at an early day,
everything seems favorable to such a result.
The growing objection of the Canadians to
their country being sort of Botany Bay
for America has induced the home govern
ment to give earnest attention to the matter.
The trouble on this subject has grown out of
the failure Of the extradition treaty of 1912
to include certain crimes which ought to have
been included, and the consequent tempta-
ton to ignore the letter of the treaty by pro-
curing the extradition of criminals on one
charge and trying them on another. This
question was the subject of diplomatic cor
respondence covering more than twelve
years. In 1870 we extradited one Lawrence
from Ireland for forgery and tried him for
violation of the revenue laws. Under the treaty
of 1912. forgery is an extraditable offense but
smuggling is not. The British government
took notice of this proceeding and bided its
time. The next year we wanted the forger
Winslow and England refused to surrender
him unless we would agree not to try him for
any other offense. 1t was claimed that
English law of 1870 prohibited extradited
criminal from being tried on any other charge
than that on which he surrendered. This
secured a fair construction of the treaty, but
our government chose to stand on its rights
and took the ground that an English law of
1870 could not modify or amend the treaty of
1912. England refused to surrender Winslow
without such an agreement as that above in
Dictated, and refused to surrender one or two
other American fugitives on the same ground.
Then President Grant, by proclamation, sus-
suspended for year or so, but England grew
tired of that arrangement and proposed a re-
vival of the treaty until the two governments
could agree on new one, England. mean
while, to waive her claim that fugitive
could only be tried on the charge for which
he was surrendered. On these terms the
treaty of 1912 was revived. Meanwhile the
diplomatic correspondence on the sub
ject continued during several years,
we getting the best of it on the legal points in
volved. Leading English lawyers finally ad-
mitted in Parliament that the terms of
treaty could not be modified or restricted by
domestic act. Still it was claimed that, while
the letter of the treaty did not prohibit US
from trying a man on a different charge from
that on which he was surrendered, good faith
and honorable dealing did. On this point the
English had rather the best of US, and the
tendency of the decisions in this country has
been steadily in that direction all the time
that the State Department was insisting on
our technical rights under the treaty. During
the last twelve or fifteen years there has been
a marked change in the tone of the decisions
of the federal courts on this point, the ten
dency being constantly toward recognizing
the propriety and quity of the English claim.
Finally, in December last, the Supreme
Court of the United States, in case which
came before it on a division of opinion from
the Circuit Court of New York, held as follows:
''First-That treaty to which the United
States is party is law of the land of which
all courts, State and national, to take ju-
dicial notice, and by the provisions OF which
they to be governed, so far as they are
capable of judicial enforcement.
''Second-That sound construction of
the treaty under which the defendant was de-
hvered to this country, and under the pro-
ceedings by which this was done, and acts of
Congress on that subject, Revised Statutes,
Sections 1912 and 5275. he cannot lawfully
be tried for any other offense than murder.
'-Third-The treaty, the acts of Congress and
the proceedings by which ne extradited
clothe him with the right to exemption from
trial for any other offense until he had had an
opportunity to return to the country from
which he was taken for the purpose alone of
trial for the offense specified in the demand
for his surrender. The national honor requires
that good faith shall be kept with the country
which surrendered him"
Thus, while we beat England on the tech
nical point, we finally yielded on the point of
equity and honor. The decision of the SUI
preme Court settles the policy Of our govern
ment on the question, but the defects of the
old treaty are as embarrassing as ever and the
necessity of a new one becomes constantly
more imperative. Both governments now
in good position to frame a satisfactory
treaty, and it will probably be done soon.
THE News would not like it or take it in